SAMUEL E. HEBERT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, TEXAS CITY, TEXAS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES

5th Cir. | 1978-09-18
No. 76-2836
Before MORGAN and GEE, Circuit Judges, and KING, District Judge.
580 F.2d 178 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (1978) Positive Treatment
Cited by 9 cases

Other
PER CURIAM:

Before MORGAN and GEE, Circuit Judges, and KING, District Judge.*

PER CURIAM:

In Hebert v. Monsanto Co., Texas City, Texas, 576 F. 2d 77 (5th Cir. 1978), we entertained an appeal brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) of an interlocutory order denying class action certification. Subsequently, the Supreme Court held that such orders are not appealable. Gardner v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co.,-U.S.-, 98 S.Ct. 2451, 57 L.Ed.2d 364 (1978). These cases are substantially similar; both present a plaintiff seeking inter alia injunctive relief for himself and an alleged class of victims of employment discrimination. In Gardner, the Court held that § 1292(a)(1) does not grant jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal from an order dénying class certification. “A holding that such an order falls within § 1292(a)(1) would compromise ‘the integrity of the congressional policy against piecemeal appeals.’ ” -U.S. at-, 98 S.Ct. at 2454. In light of the Court’s ruling, we vacate our opinion and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Dismissed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw